5 ms·

There's already data that shows masks work. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/

There's already data that shows masks work. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...

defaultprimate 5y ago
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-... https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article "At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI." https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.5-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/
- roywiggins 5y ago
  Look, I'm not qualified to evaluate a study like this, but between Science and "el gato malo" published on Substack, I think I'm going to have to go with Science on this one, pending some recognized expert in the field with a human name saying otherwise.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    Skepticism and methodological criticism are definitionally "science". Not cult like faith. Ad hominems and appeals to authority are not valid arguments.
    - roywiggins 5y ago
      Paying more attention to information in a peer-reviewed journal than information in a pseudonymous substack is not "cult-like faith." Of course the study could be wrong.
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        The study is not and has not passed peer review.
        roywiggins 5y ago
        Hasn't it? Looks published to me. It has a doi and everything. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        My mistake, the link in the article you first posted still shows it as a working paper and I couldn't find it with the original title when searching. Interestingly the DOI does not show up https://dx.doi.org/ https://dx.doi.org/ Here's some further criticisms: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    The author of the study that the bad cat is trying to discredit wrote a long, persuasive rebuttal to the simplistic critiques he's been reading on Tyler Cowen's blog; https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/jason-abaluck-writes-me-about-masks.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/ja... They saw a significant reduction in covid presence in communities with more masking -- even though total masking was still only 40% in those communities -- which is very much in line with all the other literature. I literally can't believe people still pretend like masks (especially surgical/KN95s) don't protect people when it's completely self-evident since we've used them forever to protect people in medical settings.
iso1631 5y ago
Perhaps, but given there's doesn't seem to be a clear difference between Scotland and England, that leads to questions like 1) Were people in Scotland (with higher masking) being less cautious in other areas (washing hands, staying further away, etc) 2) Was the weather worse in Scotland, leading to more closed windows 3) Are people in Scotland more likely to be tested and thus more cases caught The problem I have is that The Scientific method comes out with great studies (wearing masks, all things being equal, reduces transmission) That leads to a prediction (enforcing masks reduces cases figures) That prediction doesn't hold out (Scottish cases figures) So we need to revisit the prediction, 1) Does a mask mandate increase mask usage (anecdotally it appears so, but I only went to Glasgow and Manchester in October) 2) Does increased mask usage lead to other behaviours which would increase risk 3) Does increased mask usage lead to more awareness in testing 4) Do anti mask people go round licking door handles to try to spread covid to prove their points These are perfectly valid questions, yet you can't ask them, because half the responses will be some idiotic cultish anti-mask covid denier, and the others will be some cultish mask worshiper

There's already data that shows masks work. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...

defaultprimate 5y ago

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-... https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article "At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI." https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.5-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/

roywiggins 5y ago
Look, I'm not qualified to evaluate a study like this, but between Science and "el gato malo" published on Substack, I think I'm going to have to go with Science on this one, pending some recognized expert in the field with a human name saying otherwise.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  Skepticism and methodological criticism are definitionally "science". Not cult like faith. Ad hominems and appeals to authority are not valid arguments.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    Paying more attention to information in a peer-reviewed journal than information in a pseudonymous substack is not "cult-like faith." Of course the study could be wrong.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      The study is not and has not passed peer review.
      - roywiggins 5y ago
        Hasn't it? Looks published to me. It has a doi and everything. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        My mistake, the link in the article you first posted still shows it as a working paper and I couldn't find it with the original title when searching. Interestingly the DOI does not show up https://dx.doi.org/ https://dx.doi.org/ Here's some further criticisms: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  The author of the study that the bad cat is trying to discredit wrote a long, persuasive rebuttal to the simplistic critiques he's been reading on Tyler Cowen's blog; https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/jason-abaluck-writes-me-about-masks.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/ja... They saw a significant reduction in covid presence in communities with more masking -- even though total masking was still only 40% in those communities -- which is very much in line with all the other literature. I literally can't believe people still pretend like masks (especially surgical/KN95s) don't protect people when it's completely self-evident since we've used them forever to protect people in medical settings.

iso1631 5y ago

Perhaps, but given there's doesn't seem to be a clear difference between Scotland and England, that leads to questions like 1) Were people in Scotland (with higher masking) being less cautious in other areas (washing hands, staying further away, etc) 2) Was the weather worse in Scotland, leading to more closed windows 3) Are people in Scotland more likely to be tested and thus more cases caught The problem I have is that The Scientific method comes out with great studies (wearing masks, all things being equal, reduces transmission) That leads to a prediction (enforcing masks reduces cases figures) That prediction doesn't hold out (Scottish cases figures) So we need to revisit the prediction, 1) Does a mask mandate increase mask usage (anecdotally it appears so, but I only went to Glasgow and Manchester in October) 2) Does increased mask usage lead to other behaviours which would increase risk 3) Does increased mask usage lead to more awareness in testing 4) Do anti mask people go round licking door handles to try to spread covid to prove their points These are perfectly valid questions, yet you can't ask them, because half the responses will be some idiotic cultish anti-mask covid denier, and the others will be some cultish mask worshiper